1 The appeal is upheld with costs, including those consequent on the employment of two counsel.
2 The order of the court a quo dismissing the application with costs is set aside and the following order substituted:
‘1 Declaring that neither the first nor the second respondent can lawfully issue a notice in terms of section 65(6)(b) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998, certifying that the applicant’s conduct has been found to be a prohibited practice under the Act in Competition Tribunal of South Africa case numbers 15/CR/Feb07 and 50/CR/May08.
2 The third respondent is directed to pay the costs of the Applicant.’
Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014)  ZASCA 1590.03 MB